NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KE DA FU, No. 20-71805
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-502-854
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Ke Da Fu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fu did not
establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (applicant failed “to present compelling, objective evidence
demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (two-year period of continued residence without harm
following the incident that formed the basis of the applicant’s claim did not support
an objective fear of persecution). Thus, Fu’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Fu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fu’s remaining contentions
regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 20-71805